City Council - Special Meeting

City of Bellingham City Council Special Meeting Minutes May 8, 2024, 2:00 PM Mayor: Kimberley Lund Contact: (360) 778-8100, mayorsoffice@cob.org Council Members: Hannah Stone, Hollie Huthman, Contact: (360) 778-8200, ccmail@cob.org Daniel Hammill, Edwin H. “Skip” Williams, Lisa Anderson, https://cob.org/council Michael Lilliquist and Jace Cotton Call to Order Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Director Mark Personius welcomed everyone at 2pm. Roll Call Bellingham City Council Members Present: Council Member Hannah Stone, First Ward, Bellingham City Council Council Member Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Council Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Ferndale City Council Members Present: Council Member Herb Porter, Position 1 Whatcom County Council Members Present: Council Member Kaylee Galloway, District One Council Member Todd Donovan, District Two Council Member Mark Stremler, District Four Council Member Ben Elenbaas, District Five Council Member Jon Scanlon, At Large Position B Whatcom County Executive & Mayors Present: Executive Satpal Sidhu, Whatcom County Mayor Kim Lund, City of Bellingham Mayor John Perry, City of Everson Mayor Greg Hansen, City of Ferndale Mayor Scott Korthuis, City of Lynden Mayor Bruce Bosch, City of Sumas 24116 1. Growth Management Coordination 2025 Update p. 3 Director Personius provided an overview of the purpose and agenda for the meeting and invited meeting attendees to introduce themselves. Elected officials including mayors and council members from Whatcom County and the cities introduced themselves and the jurisdictions they represent. Members of the public in attendance also introduced themselves. Planning staff from each jurisdiction also introduced themselves. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 May 8, 2024  Ted Kamp with Leland Consulting presented the Population and Employment Growth Projections and Preliminary Allocations Technical Report. This report included background and analysis of the 2045 low, medium, and high Whatcom County growth projections from Washington State and the refined 2045 Whatcom County low, medium, and high growth projections developed by Leland. Mr. Kamp discussed elements of population growth including birth and death rates (natural increase), and net migration. The presentation included historic 10-year growth patterns for each jurisdiction, and initial technical growth allocations that will be the starting point for policy discussions between Whatcom County jurisdictions. The report also included employment growth allocations with breakouts for resource, commercial, retail, and industrial employment sectors. There were a variety of questions and comments from different elected officials related to the process of allocating population and employment. There were concerns expressed about using historic growth patterns as a starting point for future allocations, about the balance of growth allocated to rural and urban areas, about whether employment growth projections should be based on past trends or on updated land capacity, and about different jurisdictions capacity or ability to accommodate various levels and mixes of population, housing, and employment growth. Andrew Oliver with Leland Consulting presented background and overview information on House Bill 1220 and the Washington State Department of Commerce Housing For All Planning Tool (HAPT) which is an Excel spreadsheet tool that counties are required to use to establish countywide housing needs by affordability level. This tool uses future growth projections and existing housing shortfalls and household cost burden to establish future housing targets by income level for each county. Mr. Oliver reviewed the process of using the tool and the 2045 initial HAPT model output for Whatcom County using the medium level growth projection. Two initial versions of countywide housing allocations to each jurisdiction were shown. The Method “A” distribution spread future housing to each jurisdiction based on the countywide percentage of new housing construction accommodated by each jurisdiction in the past 10 years and also distributed the number of units in each income band equally. In other words, if the countywide need for future homes affordable to households earning 30% to 50% of median income is 25%, then each jurisdiction shares of new housing included a 25% share affordable to that income range. The Modified Method “A” distribution used the same total housing allocation to each jurisdiction but for rural areas outside urban growth areas the income bands affordable to households earning less than 50% of median income were set to zero in recognition of challenges associated with Growth Management Act restrictions and accommodating higher density housing types in rural areas without appropriate supporting infrastructure. The units from these income bands were re-allocated to urban growth areas and to balance the distribution, higher-income band housing units from urban growth areas were re-allocated to the rural areas. There were a variety of questions and comments from elected officials regarding the ways the model results and zoning regulations can be connected to actual housing types and to specific home sale or rental rate levels. There was a discussion of how land capacity analysis results will relate to housing allocations. There were concerns expressed about the ability of each jurisdiction to plan for and finance the infrastructure necessary to accommodate housing and employment growth and the implications for housing affordability. There were questions related to the upcoming planning process and approach to develop an interjurisdictional resolution for growth projections. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 May 8, 2024  Sharese Graham with SCJ Consulting gave a presentation on the current status of the countywide Environmental Impact Statement and its role in the periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan. The presentation included a discussion of growth alternatives and topics that will be examined in the impacts analysis. Ms. Graham also included an overview of the schedule for development of the draft EIS by Fall of 2024 and the final EIS by Spring of 2025. There were questions from elected officials related to the purpose of the EIS. Bill Grimes, Principal with SCJ Consulting provided some contextual comments about the purpose of the non-project EIS and how it provides documentation of potential impacts and relates to the policy work required by each jurisdiction to be compliant with the Growth Management Act. Following the presentations there was a general discussion period for elected officials to talk about issues raised during the presentations and other planning issues of regional concern related to the periodic update. The need for a countywide industrial lands study was brought up and discussed by County and city officials. There was appreciation expressed for meetings like this and some elected officials charged planning staff from each jurisdiction to bring innovative policy ideas forward to them that address the needs of their communities. The idea of a countywide wetland mitigation bank was also expressed as a way to make development of critical infrastructure, housing, and employment lands more attainable. Following the discussion Director Personius thanked those in attendance in-person and online for a robust discussion. County staff announced the next meeting in this series would occur in September and to look for an invitation soon that confirms date, time, and location. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00pm. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 May 8, 2024